Supreme Court Needs to Lay down New Rules on the Issue of Liability for Negligence - Research Paper Example

On the present UK tort law, it is said that “Generally, the damage necessary to sustain a claim in negligence must be actual physical injury to person or property other than the property which is the product of the negligence itself.” (Keating, 1995)  It may seem absurd why the law requires damaged and defective properties to actually cause injuries and further damages before allowing a claim for negligence. But the logic and reason behind this principle can be found through an examination of the elements of an action for negligence.

In order to impose liability for negligence, there must be a duty of care owed by the defendant to the complainant that has been breached and results in damage or injury to the claimant. It must be emphasized that the loss or injury suffered by the claimant must be of consequential nature. In other words, the loss must be the result of the damaged or defective nature of the property and not the damage to the property itself. When a party has acted negligently which results in a defective property, there is only pure economic loss which is not actionable under tort laws.

They may only sue based on contractual rights and obligations. But when such damaged property has caused actual injuries to persons or damages to other properties, then it is now a consequential loss which gives rise to liabilities for negligence under the English law on tort. English jurisprudence has wavered on this issue starting from the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) where the House of Lords established the proximity rule in defining the existence of a duty of care and the concomitant liability for negligence.